- In what ways do you hope your practical work engages its audience and communicates a key concern of this studio?
Perhaps not my favourite exhibition, my production of exercise Six did in fact exhibit a nice sense of continuity across the multiple shots captured over three separate locations. This was achieved by virtue of our group’s performative tone and ability to implement a conventional usage of eye-line matching to convey a connectedness between our locations. Not only was this achieved solely by our use of these methods, a level of this was executed in the post production stage where I provided my edit with a basic colour grading attempt. Using Irene’s footage as a reference point, I matched the overall look and feel of my provided footage with her’s. Beginning the process by altering the white tone of my footage until there was a similarity with that of Irene’s, then slight adjustments to the temperature, curves and tints, followed by the addition of an adjustment layer which saw all footage have an equivalent overall tone.
As mentioned in my more in depth reflection of this piece, I think minor edits to the assembly and edit itself would see a slightly more refined film. However, I am largely happy with the aesthetic provided by the use of colour alteration and thought the final look and feel of the piece was clean and consistent. As stated in previous responses to this piece, there is very little question of whether or not the two characters are in the same location. I hope the seamless nature of this piece is also realised by future audiences, as that is something I desired to achieve before the commencement of production.
- Imagine you are going to keep working on that media piece (e.g. to screen it somewhere else like a festival, or develop it into a different kind of work) – what core things would you want to change, improve and/or extend, and why?
If I were to further refine this work, I would definitely have the main interaction play out in the one location. While the way in which this work was originally filmed was due to circumstances beyond our control, the piece definitely lacked a degree of spatial communication. As a result of trying to mask parts of our respective locations for easier consolidation of shots, much of what we filmed was quite tight. Instead, if shot with both actors on site, I would opt for the addition of some much wider shots to establish the mood and environment.
In my current version I began with an establishing shot of the exterior of Esme and Irma’s house. This was used to justify that both characters were in the same space. However a shot of this nature would not be necessary if redone with all cast on location. In a redo, I’d like the scene begin with a mid-shot on Esme as she recites the first few lines of what she is reading, then a shot of the laptop to reveal who she is interacting with, followed by a wider shot to also reveal Irma and the rest of the space.
As the script (and maybe more so my original interpretation of the text) alludes to Irma’s disinterest and almost opposition toward what Esme is saying and doing, the use of wider shots throughout the interaction may highlight the awkwardness of the scene by showing a possible emptiness of the space. Instead of cutting back and forth between tighter shots of Irma and Esme, a wider shot will capture both in frame at once. This will allow the audience to see the slight hostility or rudeness of Irma’s body language as Esme is speaking, while also adding more diversity in coverage and showing us more of the environment the two are in. A wider shot would also be beneficial at the end of the scene when Irma exits the space, leaving Esme by herself. This would amplify the sense of Esme’s loneliness or mellowness. Once established for a moment, I’d move to a medium close up to capture the subtleties in Esme’s performance.